“What we must know about 1400 years of the religion of peace,” by Bill Muehlenberg, Spectator Australia, December 16, 2018:

The Communists relished having hordes of “useful idiots” in the West to readily carry out their agenda and became their avid apologists. Today we have a similar situation when it comes to the political ideology known as Islam. Both have resulted in millions of murdered and terrorised victims, yet both have their plenteous supporters and ideological foot-soldiers.

Thankfully many have been awake to the reality of these killing machines. There were always some courageous souls who were willing to document and denounce the evils of totalitarian communism. Obviously, Alexander Solzhenitsyn and his three-volume, The Gulag Archipelago (1973-1978) come to mind. So too the after-the-fact expose, The Black Book of Communism by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Andrzej Paczkowski and others, (first published in French in 1997).

It is the same when it comes to Islam. Its 1400-year history speaks for itself, but many have sought to chronicle its bloodletting and terror. One thinks of contemporary voices such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ibn Warraq, Oriana Fallaci, Walid Phares, Geert Wilders, Bat Ye’or, Brigitte Gabriel, Nonie Darwish and Pam Gellar – champions all.

But credit must also go to one American authority on Islam, creeping sharia, and the threat the West is under. I refer to Robert Spencer. I have most of his eighteen books, and can attest to his massive storehouse of knowledge, insight and concern he offers in his trenchant and illuminating works. And his latest volume is no exception.

In The History of Jihad, he offers us a panoramic view of 14 centuries of Islamic bloodshed and killing. And he wastes no time in going for the jugular. As he says in the introduction:

There is no period since the beginning of Islam that was characterized by large-scale peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims. There was no time when mainstream and dominant Islamic authorities taught the equality of non-Muslims with Muslims, or the obsolescence of jihad warfare. There was no Era of Good Feeling, no Golden Age of Tolerance, no Paradise of Proto-Multiculturalism. There has always been, with virtually no interruption, jihad.

Strong claims. But Spencer spends 400 pages documenting this in great detail. And all this is due to the life and teachings of Muhammad as recorded in the Qur’an, the hadiths, and the Sira. Indeed, both of the major schools of Islam, Sunni and Shi’ite, fully affirm the need to kill the infidel if they refuse to convert or be subjugated.

Islamic terror goes back to day one of Islam. As Muhammad said on his deathbed: “I have been made victorious with terror.” Spencer remarks, “It was a fitting summation of his entire public career.” Thus the first chapter of this vital book looks carefully at the role jihad played in the life of Islam’s founder. It is not a pretty read.

And since Muhammad is regarded as the perfect example for all Muslims to follow, his bloodthirsty ways were carefully emulated by his devout adherents ever since. Spreading the faith by the edge of the sword was forever to be standard Muslim practice.

Thus by the end of the seventh century, just decades after Muhammad’s death, authoritarian Muslim control extended from North Africa to Central Asia. And the spread of Islam continued apace over the next few centuries. The conquest of Spain and India followed, and the body count continued to mount up.

So too did slavery, destruction, bloodshed and dhimmitude. The gory details of ruthless Islamic oppression in these and other regions are carefully related by Spencer, usually relying on accounts written during the time. And the many stories of the enslavement and persecution and pogroms against Christians and Jews makes up a big part of all this.

While the phrase ‘streets running with rivers of blood’ may involve some poetic license, more than once we read of this being the outcome of Islamic slaughter and carnage. For example, Spencer cites historian Steven Runciman regarding the fall of Constantinople in May of 1453:

The Muslims “slew everyone that they met in the streets, men, women, and children without discrimination. The blood ran in rivers down the steep streets from the heights of Petra toward the Golden Horn. But soon the lust for slaughter was assuaged. The soldiers realized that captives and precious objects would bring them greater profit.”

Or consider one contemporary Muslim account of the jihad against Hindus in India in the fourteenth century. Some 100,000 men had taken refuge on an island along with their families. The Muslims transformed “the island into a basin of blood by the massacre of the unbelievers…. Women with babies and pregnant ladies were haltered, manacled, fettered and enchained, and pressed as slaves into service at the house of every soldier.”

The Islamic warlord Tamerlane, who actually penned an autobiography, spoke of his dilemma as to what to do with a large horde of Hindu prisoners. He went with an easy option, saying this: “One hundred thousand infidels, impious idolaters, were on that day slain.”

Moving to more recent times, consider the treatment of the Christian Armenians. Late in 1894 a massacre lasting 24 days wiped out 25 villages. People were burned alive, and pregnant women were ripped open and their babies torn to pieces.

But much worse was to come. The Armenian genocide, beginning in 1915, resulted in the death of around one and a half million Armenians, 700,000 Greeks, and 275,000 Assyrians. Says Spencer: “Christian communities that had existed since the beginning of Christianity were wiped out. Constantinople, fifty per cent Christian even in 1914, is today 99.99 per cent Muslim… Adolf Hitler was impressed with the brutal efficiency of how the Turks answered their ‘Armenian question’.”

He also looks at the Islamic war against Israel. He recounts how the Soviet KGB invented the fiction of the Palestinian people (there long had been a region known by the name of Palestine, but never a people or an ethnicity). The Soviets also helped to form the PLO and carefully mentored Arafat to do their bidding.

Spencer quotes a PLO leader who said in 1977, “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state was only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity.” He also discusses the formation of Hamas in 1988 and its determination to wipe Israel off the map.

He brings things right up to date, looking at Al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and September 11. And he reminds us how harmful policies of appeasement and Islamophilia have been in the West. For example, the Catholic church which was once on “the forefront of resistance to the jihad for centuries” has begun to cave, especially under the current Pope, who has become an avid defender of Islam and the Qur’an….

We all owe Robert Spencer a debt of gratitude for bringing together in one volume this stomach-turning but necessary story of what Islam is really all about. Hopefully, this book will do for the threat of Islam what The Gulag Archipelago did for communism.

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by أخٌ في الله … on Unsplash. Get The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIShere. What better gift can you give than the truth that the political and media elites are working indefatigably to obscure?

https://fitnaphobia.com/wp-content/uploads/mhrezaa-1088240-unsplash-1-e1545128391662.jpg377640Robert Spencerhttps://fitnaphobia.com/wp-content/uploads/logotext_white_312x71.pngRobert Spencer2018-12-18 05:20:342018-12-18 05:20:34What we must know about 1400 years of the religion of peace

This charge should be dropped, and Major Golsteyn released. He was doing his duty as a soldier, and the charge is a travesty of justice. “Golsteyn said he killed the suspected Taliban operative because he was afraid the man would kill the tribal leader who had disclosed his identity to Golsteyn, Task and Purpose reported. The man had allegedly built a bomb that killed two Marines.”

So Golsteyn was acting to protect American troops and their allies. Is Barack Obama still President? Why is this man being charged?

Golsteyn has been charged with premeditated murder and could face the death penalty, Golsteyn’s attorney, Phillip Stackhouse, told the Times.

“Maj. Golsteyn is being charged with the murder of an Afghan male during his 2010 deployment to Afghanistan,” U.S. Army Special Operations Command spokesman Lt. Col. Loren Bymer told Task and Purpose Thursday.

Golsteyn is a “humble servant-leader who saved countless lives, both American and Afghan, and has been recognized repeatedly for his valorous actions,” Stackhouse said of his client, the Times reported.

The Army revoked Golsteyn’s Silver Star in February 2015, pending an investigation into whether he killed the alleged Taliban bomb maker while serving in Afghanistan, according to The Fayetteville Observer.

The Army investigated the alleged incident but initially found no evidence proving Golsteyn had committed a crime. He was placed on “excess leave” during the investigation, and reinstated for active duty service after a board of inquiry June 2015 recommendation, Task and Purpose reported.

The investigation was reopened after Golsteyn admitting he killed the man during an October 2016 interview with Fox News’s Bret Baier.

Golsteyn said he killed the suspected Taliban operative because he was afraid the man would kill the tribal leader who had disclosed his identity to Golsteyn, Task and Purpose reported. The man had allegedly built a bomb that killed two Marines, Army Times reported….

Who appointed CAIR the ultimate arbiter on who should occupy positions of authority? Western cowards have allowed the group to claim this status.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on the Trump administration to withdraw its nomination of Heather Nauert for the position of U.N. ambassador, saying she is “Unqualified and Islamophobic.”

Hamas-linked CAIR has a long memory. Here is what CAIR remembers:

In a 2009 Fox special on “stealth jihad,” she interviewed Islamophobic panelists, including notorious Islamophobes like Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney and Nonie Darwish, who claims that “Islam should be feared, and should be fought, and should be conquered, and defeated, and annihilated.” Nauert has also defended Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Those who read the writings and listen to the speeches of Mr. Spencer know that CAIR’s charges are hollow. He is still waiting for feedback on the question of what exactly makes him “Islamophobic.” What news that is presented on Jihad Watch is fake? None. The problem is that according to Sharia, crimes, murder and abuses committed in the name of Islam are not supposed to be called out. Period. Speaking the truth renders one “Islamophobic,” so anyone who is literate and knows the abuses that are occurring in the name of Islam worldwide is “Islamophobic.”

WASHINGTON, Dec. 7, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, today called on the Trump administration to withdraw its nomination of Heather Nauert for the position of U.N. ambassador, saying she is “Unqualified and Islamophobic.”

Early next year, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will hold a nomination hearing for Nauert. CAIR is urging the Senate and members of the Foreign Relations Committee to oppose and vote “NO” on Nauert’s nomination for the position of U.N. ambassador.

CAIR said Nauert promoted Islamophobic smears while employed as a Fox News anchor.

In 2013, she criticized special swim classes for a group of Somali-American girls, describing the classes as the “minority becoming the majority at one community pool. Sharia law is now changing everything.”

In a 2009 Fox special on “stealth jihad,” she interviewed Islamophobic panelists, including notorious Islamophobes like Robert Spencer, Frank Gaffney and Nonie Darwish, who claims that “Islam should be feared, and should be fought, and should be conquered, and defeated, and annihilated.” Nauert has also defended Trump’s anti-Muslim rhetoric.

Nauert previously bashed refugee students in Pennsylvania for wanting “an even better” public education and falsely claimed that child migrants from Central America were “an illegal health risk.”

Other than her current position as State Department spokesperson, Nauert has no apparent diplomatic or government experience or expertise.

“Heather Nauert does not represent our nation’s diversity or its commitment to treating all Americans with equality and respect,” said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad.

“Such an important post should not be occupied by someone who is clearly unqualified and Islamophobic,” said CAIR Government Affairs Director Robert McCaw. “There are many other individuals who do have the knowledge and background necessary for this post. Ms. Nauert’s nomination should be withdrawn.”….

The UN Migration Pact represents a catastrophic dismantling of key components of democratic institutions by the United Nations, a body that has increasingly alliedwith the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The Pact — officially named the “Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration” — indicates that it “offers a 360-degree vision of international migration and recognizes that a comprehensive approach is needed to optimize the overall benefits of migration, while addressing risks and challenges for individuals and communities in countries of origin, transit and destination.” It also states that “No country can address the challenges and opportunities of this global phenomenon on its own.”

This means (sarcasm warning ahead) that all countries must depend on the competent, just and democratic United Nations to guide them to enjoying the benefits of mass migration. To do this, one would have to turn a blind eye to the globalist vision of open borders that has plunged Europe into crisis, a crisis that has led in turn to the rise of the so-called “populist” movement. Contrary to the media’s labeling of it as “racist” and “Nazi,” this movement supports democracy, supports Israel, and aims to defend free societies, marginalize Islamic supremacists, and stop their incursions into Western countries. So-called “populist” leaders have also sought to protect their citizens from the damage of unlimited, unvetted migration.

Objective 2 which commits destination nations to the elimination of poverty and social inequity in originating nations;
Objective 5 requirement to assist migrants with identifying the best host country for their needs;
Objective 7 stipulation that calls for “irregular” status migrants to be considered for “regular” status;
Objective 16 direction to accommodate family reunification programs thereby expanding, exponentially, the flow rate of migration;
Objective 17 requirement to eliminate “all forms of discrimination” in the host population including those that call into question the political opinions of migrants. Here we can see Motion M-103 as a precursor for a larger, more comprehensive Global Compact initiative;
Objective 17 direction to tightly control criticism of migrants and migration programs;
Objective 17 restrictions on media outlets and professionals to ensure they are properly “sensitized” and “educated” in matters pertaining to migration;
Objective 20 stipulations that faster, better, more efficient remittance programs be developed to funnel monies out of destination and into originating nations; and
Objective 22 requirement to make all migrant-gained social benefits and pensions portable to any other jurisdictions of his or her choice.

Canada’s opposition Conservative leader Andrew Scheer advised Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: “Instead of signing international agreements that erode our sovereign right to manage our borders, the prime minister should focus on restoring order at home.” To that, Trudeau had no reply except to accuse Scheer of using “Rebel Media talking points.”

Restoring order in Canada and securing security, economic growth and jobs for Canadians, don’t appear to be on the agenda of the globalist Trudeau. It is well known that he welcomes anyone and everyone into Canada. Directly following Trump’s temporary immigration ban on Muslim countries, Trudeau tweeted: “To those fleeing persecution, terror & war, Canadians will welcome you, regardless of your faith. Diversity is our strength #WelcomeToCanada.” Already, at least 25,000 Syrian refugees were accepted into the country in 2016, while there were over 20,000 illegal border crossings into Canada from the US through the Quebec border from early 2017 up to Spring 2018. Over the Easter weekend alone, 600 illegal migrants crossed into Canada. During the summer, such entries were expected to be around 400 per day. The crisis prompted even the Washington Post to publish an article: Nigerians are walking into Canada, prompting request for U.S. to take action. Since Spring, there has been virtual radio silence on the matter. The U.S.-Canadian border is approximately 3,987 miles long. Add to that the Alaska-Canada border, at 1,538 miles. By way of comparison, the U.S.-Mexican border is roughly 1,933 miles.

Unfortunately, persecuted Christians and Yazidis have not been included in Trudeau’s big welcome. Instead, Trudeau has welcomed in Islamic State jihadists who kill, rape and torture, hoping that these jihadists would be a “powerful voice” in Canada once they became “deradicalized.” Trudeau also has an Islamic entryist problem in his own government. He even sent a delegation to the 44th session of the Council of Foreign Ministers of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and imposed Islamic blasphemy laws on Canada via the anti-Islamophobia motion M-103. A followup to that motion documents the objective to “monitor citizens for compliance” and train law enforcement officers to investigate online and offline “hate speech.” Meanwhile, Trudeau discriminates against Christians — referring to them as the “worst part of Canadian society”; he cut off summer job funding to any organization who opposes abortion.

Some more appalling information: the Trudeau government has spent an astronomical amount of taxpayer money on self-serving media and social media campaigns: over $13,600,000 on sponsored social media posts, along with an earmarked $675,000,000 in funding for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in 2016. And now with elections coming up in 2019, Trudeau has pledged a $595,000,000 media bailout for media news organizations of his choosing.

Now Canadians must pay for his migration project far into the future, just as Canada’s unemployment rate is the worst it has been in four decades.

This is the country, almost unrecognizable as Canada after three years of Trudeau, that now intends to lead the charge on the UN Migration Pact. President Trump has already rejected the pact, although since the U.S. shares a long border with Canada — as well as with Mexico — his administration’s work will clearly be cut out for it, amid his other battles against the relentless attacks from globalist Democrats. Slovakia, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel, Austria, Bulgaria, Switzerland, Australia and Italy have also rejected the Pact.

A rally against the UN Migration Pact is set for this upcoming Saturday on Parliament Hill. Canadians are encouraged to sign a petition against the Pact HERE. Canada is set to sign the Pact in Morocco on December 10-11.

The horrors of the Yemeni civil war appall most who realize the scale of the humanitarian disaster unfolding there. Hundreds of thousands are dead and injured, millions face starvation, a cholera epidemic is raging, and there is no end in sight to the fighting. But for those Senators who appear determined to bring a measure to the floor for a vote intended to force the Trump administration to withdraw U.S. military support for the Saudi-led coalition that’s battling Iran-backed Houthi rebels there, please think again. This is not the time to go wobbly on either Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) or the U.S.-Saudi relationship.

Apparently miffed that CIA Director Gina Haspel had declined to appear in person to answer Senators’ questions about the Agency’s analysis of the Jamal Khashoggi affair, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and others threatened to hold up administration legislation until Haspel agreed to meet with them. After Haspel then provided that briefing on 4 December—reportedly concluding that MBS personally ordered Khashoggi’s murder—Graham and other Senators now appear even more determined to put a spoke in the U.S.-Saudi relationship. This is dangerously misguided.

For all his obvious shortcomings, MBS is the best chance we or the Saudis will have for the foreseeable future to modernize Saudi Arabia and confront the critical threat of an aggressive and expansionist Iranian regime. For any of that to happen, Saudi Arabia must remain stable. That means the succession from King Salman to his heir-apparent (MBS) must proceed as smoothly as possible. Given the realities of cut-throat palace intrigue among the senior ranks of a tribe just two generations out of the desert, only a ruthless King who rules by fiat can hold things together as the Kingdom undertakes the wrenching growth and modernization phase MBS envisions. MBS has emerged as that ruler.

It is likely that we will never know exactly who ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on 2 October 2018. All we can be fairly certain of is that it probably was not the Crown Prince. Far more likely is that a conspiracy of rival princes, furious at being passed over by this young upstart and many of them arrested and shaken down in the mass detentions MBS ordered earlier this year, is attempting a palace coup against MBS. The royal family appears to be fully aware of the danger: earlier this week, there was a shuffle within the Saudi military and troops were moved to the capital, Riyadh.

As for Yemen, despite the awful humanitarian crisis there, were the U.S. to abandon the Saudis and their multi-national coalition there (that includes U.S. Green Berets and French Special Forces), the consequences could be far worse. A look at a map of the Middle East shows why. The Iranian regime is engaged in a life-and-death struggle with Saudi Arabia and its Sunni allies for control of the region and ultimately the top prize, seizure of Mecca and Medina. Tehran prefers to operate through proxies—HAMAS in Gaza, Hizballah in Lebanon and Syria, Shi’ite militias in Iraq—and so it is in Yemen.

The Houthis are Zaidi Shi’ites, who are being armed, backed, funded, and supported by Iran and Lebanese Hizballah. A Houthi victory in Yemen would give Iran a strategic foothold at the southwest tip of the Arabian Peninsula from which to threaten a 1,770-kilometer shared border with Saudi Arabia. Potentially even more concerning, Yemen sits astride the Bab al-Mandab, one of the most important straits in the world, that connects the Arabian Sea/Gulf of Aden with the Red Sea and Suez Canal. Houthi rebels already have fired Iranian-supplied ballistic missiles at both Riyadh and coalition vessels off the Yemeni coast. U.S. State Department Special Representative for Iran, Brian Hook, held a 29 November 2018 press conference at the Joint-Base Anacostia Bolling to display some of that Iranian weaponry, recovered by the Saudis.

Clearly, the stakes are high. MBS is an imperfect partner but a necessary one for the confrontation with a nuclear-arming Iran, still-powerful al-Qa’eda, and a possibly resurgent Islamic State, that lies ahead. To their credit, it seems that President Trump, Secretary of State Pompeo, and Secretary of Defense Mattis all understand this. By standing by MBS now, when he most needs U.S. support, we may establish a relationship to our and our allies’ benefit for a generation to come. This is about a long-term strategic policy for the U.S., Israel, Egypt, Gulf and other regional partners—not just Saudi Arabia.

Republican lawmakers are working with Democrats to ban the 2020 Census from asking United States residents whether or not they are American citizens.

In March, President Donald Trump’s administration announced they would put the citizenship question back on the census. It has not been included since 1950. For seven decades, all residents living in the United States have been counted on the census but have not been asked whether or not they are American citizens, making it impossible for the federal government to know the size of the citizen population versus the immigrant population.

Now, Republican and Democrat lawmakers are looking to reach a deal before the new year that would prevent the U.S. citizenship question from being asked on the 2020 Census, a Reutersreport reveals:

Derek Kilmer, a Democrat from Washington state and also a member of the subcommittee, told Reuters he would “pursue action with my colleagues on the House Appropriations Committee to block the inclusion of the citizenship question.” [Emphasis added]

Getting a deal done this year will not be easy as it would likely mean making concessions to Republicans on funding for the Trump administration’s proposed border wall with Mexico, two of the sources familiar with the Democrats’ thinking said. [Emphasis added]

Center for Security Policy CEO Frank Gaffney said if Republicans aid Democrats in blocking the American citizenship question on the 2020 Census, this is the “serial GOP acquiescence to Democrats’ demands – especially those that contribute to the fundamental transformation of America” that can be expected in the upcoming Congress. [Emphasis added by CSP]

“Unfortunately, the radical left has already made great strides in making-over American society by alienating its young people from our country, symbols, values, and history,” Gaffney continued. [Emphasis added by CSP]

“This trend must be reversed if the United States is to survive as a constitutional republic,” Gaffney said. “Let’s start by finding out how many of those here are American citizens.” [Emphasis added by CSP]

In a Rasmussen Reports poll, nearly 2-in-3 likely voters, or about 66 percent, said the U.S. Census should ask respondents whether they are citizens of the country. Only about a quarter of Americans said they opposed the citizenship question on the census.

Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach has noted the citizenship question on the census is necessary to further implement congressional apportionment based on the citizen population rather than the current rules that base state representation on the total population — including citizens, illegal alien residents, legal immigrants, and nonimmigrants on visas.

Should congressional apportionment be based on the number of American citizens in each state — which is only possible through asking the citizenship question on the census — Democrat-strong coastal areas with large foreign populations like California and Florida could lose representation, while states with small foreign populations like Wyoming and Ohio would likely gain representation in Congress. Such a rule change would shift power from coastal states to the heartland of the country, Breitbart News reported.

COLUMN BY

JOHN BINDER

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter @JxhnBinder.

https://fitnaphobia.com/wp-content/uploads/census-2020-e1543942148258.jpeg385640Center For Security Policyhttps://fitnaphobia.com/wp-content/uploads/logotext_white_312x71.pngCenter For Security Policy2018-12-04 11:50:302018-12-06 06:48:22Republicans Working With Democrats to Ban Counting U.S. Citizens in Census

As Germany struggles to cope with its Muslim migrant problem, the Interior Ministry has launched an ad campaign to pay migrants to go back home. This move is a retreat from the globalist utopian vision of open borders and the goal of bringing migrants into Europe as workers and taxpayers to compensate for the low birthrates in Western nations.

Back in 2017, Berlin offered compensation to rejected refugees who wouldn’t fight deportation. Every volunteer returnee normally gets some €1,200 from the German authorities but, according to German media, under the new program they could get up to €3,000.

And while reports (consistent with the globalist agenda) are circulating about public opposition to the idea of paying migrants to go home, that claim is not realistic. Germany has experienced chaos because of the migrant influx, prompting even Angela Merkel to flip-flop on her own views toward migrants. Merkel has even acknowledged the rise of Islamic anti-semitism in her country. Meantime, when a Muslim migrant beheaded a 1-year-old infant, Merkel banned media reporting. The report below minimizes the fallout from the migrant crisis in Germany, and asserts about the Interior Ministry ad campaign:

Ordinary people seemingly did not appreciate the initiative either, with many interpreting the true message behind the slogan as: “Germany is not your land and your future is not here.” Others simply called the campaign “horrible”while slamming the very idea of such initiative as “inhumane.”

Speaking for “ordinary people” is off base, considering the thousands of people in cities across Germany who marched against the migrant influx. Many of those protestors were themselves immigrants and former refugees.

All in all, the majority of Europeans oppose the Muslim migrant influx, as globalists and their media lackeys try to show otherwise.

Germany has lost track of over one million “refugees”; rapists and jihadists are at large. More Germans are now arming themselves following the many high profile attacks.

Paying migrants to return home is a futile venture, as it risks establishing a cycle of returnees who are paid multiple times to go home. But it does indicate that even German officials are now tacitly acknowledging how dangerous open borders are to Germany and any sovereign nation.

As Germany still struggles to balance its migration policy, the Interior Ministry has apparently decided to take one of the issues into its own hands and, through an ad campaign, boost the numbers of voluntary repatriations.

The ministry, led by Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Bavarian ally Horst Seehofer, decided to lure potential repatriates with a supposedly bright future awaiting them in their countries of origin – as well as a sort of a complimentary gift should they agree to go home voluntarily.

The ads, which were placed on the billboards in major German cities in mid-November, featured a cheerful slogan that read: “Your country! Your future! Now!”

The ads also offered those who grab the unique opportunity before the end of 2018 a bonus in the form of the German government paying their rental costs in their countries of origin for the next year. In return, the refugees have to take back their asylum applications and renounce further legal proceedings to remain in Germany.

The unusual move was apparently prompted by a rapid decline this year in voluntary returns among migrants and asylum seekers. In 2017, 29,000 people joined the voluntary return programs, but this year the figure drastically fell to just 14,000 by the end of October.

It remains to be seen whether the ministry struck a chord with the people it sought to reach out to, but it has already clearly sparked a backlash.

“The latest campaign of the interior ministry looks like a sort of a winter sales and that is cynical,” Konstantin von Notz, the deputy head of the Greens faction in the Bundestag, told Berliner Morgenpost daily. “It is apparently aimed at concealing [the ministry’s] own failures and improving the figures related to people, who voluntarily left the country, before the end of the year.”

Ordinary people seemingly did not appreciate the initiative either, with many interpreting the true message behind the slogan as: “Germany is not your land and your future is not here.” Others simply called the campaign “horrible” while slamming the very idea of such initiative as “inhumane.”……

EDITORS NOTE: This column with images originally appeared on Jihad Watch. It is republished with permission. The featured photo is by Lukas Juhason Unsplash.

https://fitnaphobia.com/wp-content/uploads/lukas-juhas-770589-unsplash-e1543754824106.jpg360640Robert Spencerhttps://fitnaphobia.com/wp-content/uploads/logotext_white_312x71.pngRobert Spencer2018-12-02 07:47:132018-12-02 07:47:13Germany now offering to pay migrants to go back home

EDITORS NOTE: This column with video and images originally appeared on Jihad Watch.

https://fitnaphobia.com/wp-content/uploads/Rory-Sauter-Show.jpg360640Robert Spencerhttps://fitnaphobia.com/wp-content/uploads/logotext_white_312x71.pngRobert Spencer2018-12-01 07:22:502018-12-01 07:45:56VIDEO: On the Migrant Crisis and its National Security Implications

These revelations come after it has long been known that 1,400 British non-Muslim children were gang-raped and brutalized by Muslims in one city alone, and “several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so.”

Why did they fear being thought of as racist? The Muslim rape gangs went unreported, unprosecuted, and in general unstopped because of far-Left organizations including Hope Not Hate, Faith Matters, and Tell Mama, which waged relentless war against anyone and everyone who spoke out about these issue. They demonized as “Islamophobic,” “hateful” and “bigoted” anyone who said that there were Muslim rape gangs at all, and that they had to be stopped. They led the campaign to ban Pamela Geller and me from entering the country, when one of the events we had discussed going to was a rally against the Muslim rape gangs.

Hope Not Hate has scrubbed the evidence, but it used to be possible to search for “grooming” (as these gangs are usually called “grooming gangs” in the British media) at Hope Not Hate’s site. You would have seen that the vast majority of the articles mentioning this practice were attacking those who were calling attention to it and protesting against it.

Who is responsible for the mass gang-rape of British girls by Muslims? The British Left — in particular the “anti-hate” crusaders Nick Lowles and Matthew Collins of Hope Not Hate, Fiyaz Mughal of Faith Matters and Tell Mama, and their friends, supporters, and allies.

The lives of at least 1,400 girls are ruined today because of these men. If Britain were even close to being a sane society today, these people would be being subjected to scorching criticism, and there would be a thorough public reevaluation of how much the Left’s alliance with Islamic supremacism and smear campaign against foes of jihad terror has harmed the nation and its people.

But Britain is not a sane society today, and these sinister individuals — Lowles, Mughal, and the rest of them — continue to wield their considerable power and influence in British society. If Britain is ever to recover itself and stave off chaos, civil war and Sharia, Lowles, Collins, Mughal and others like them would be arrested and tried. But that is not going to happen.

“Sexual exploitation of British Sikh girls by grooming gangs has been ‘recklessly ignored’ by police due to ‘political correctness’, claims report,” by Daniel Martin, Daily Mail, November 26, 2018:

Gangs of predominantly Pakistani men have been grooming British Sikh girls for decades, according to claims in a bombshell report.

The study alleges that young Sikh women have been ‘targeted’ by Muslim men who subjected them to sexual abuse.

The report by the Sikh Mediation and Rehabilitation Team charity found that police ‘recklessly ignored’ complaints – often for reasons of ‘political correctness’.

In many cases, according to the report, the men would groom a girl before passing her round to other members of their family.

The girls would be snared by ‘fashionably dressed adult Pakistani men travelling in flamboyant vehicles to predominantly Sikh dominated areas and schools’, it claimed.

The report said that while the revelation of grooming gangs targeting white girls in Rochdale shocked the nation in 2012, similar instances had long been taking place under the radar in Britain’s Sikh communities.

Sikh community leaders say the problem started in the 1960s. The charity said the report was not a ‘witch-hunt against any individual, community, culture or faith’ – but said nothing would change unless the facts were known….

The report said: ‘The research has found verification demonstrating a history of predominantly Pakistani grooming gangs targeting young Sikh females for over 50 years.

‘The over representation of such perpetrators in selecting non-Muslim victims would appear to be indicative of a wider acceptability in certain sections of the community towards the targeting of young females from outside of the Pakistani community and/or Muslim faith.

‘Due to the failures of law enforcement agencies and local authorities in addressing the problem, such networks have continued to flourish.’

The study included a case in 1971 when an 11-year-old was jailed for imprisoning a Sikh girl in Slough.

In other reports in the 1980s, Sikhs were complaining about Muslims ‘pestering’ their girls or that their girls were being ‘used as sex slaves’….

Year after year, FBI hate crime statistics belie the establishment media myth that Muslims in the U.S. are subjected to widespread persecution, harassment, and discrimination. No targeting of any innocent person, Muslim or non-Muslim, is ever justified; the massive societal concern (and obsession on campuses) with “Islamophobia” and relative indifference to anti-Semitism is not reflected by the facts. It’s manipulative propaganda designed to deflect attention away from jihad activity and stymie counterterror efforts.